To follow latest discussions about nudging in Sweden – join the network group on Facebook

Beteendeekonomi

The fox wanted the grapes, butwhen she found she couldn’t reach them she decided that they were probably sour, so she revised her original intention and believed that she never really wanted the grapes in the first place.

– The fox and the sour grapes, Aesop’s fable

One more year has passed and hopefully you have become wiser in life. You have not done the same mistakes like the year before, you know how foolish it is to do the same mistake twice. You have handed in all deadlines in time, you have ended all bad habits and you have never been to fatigue to care about your beloved ones.

Every year there is a constant strive to improve us to the next. New Years resolution is an excellent way to give us bad conscious. We set goals for the coming year, but do we act with them?

We all know that we sometimes cave into urges and don’t always do what we planned and we follow old habits even though we know they are bad for us. Our capacity to make decisions has limitations and we tend to use heuristics (i.e. mental shortcuts) in our everyday decision making Simon (1990). It seems to be very hard for us individuals to accept that we not all the time act with our intentions. When you look back on 2014, what would you remember? What are your best and worst moments? Is it the ones that Facebook would summarize, or is it the ones that social norms and society would define?

When you scrutinize yourself and the year, would you be grateful of your success stories or disappointed of that you haven’t accomplished?

There appears like we accept ourselves when we act in line with the rational Home economicus, but there is important to understand that happiness do not correspond to utility Clark et al. (2008). Happiness is subjective and very hard do define. If we would be more accepting towards our inadequacies and be more satisfied with out actions, would we be happier?

What if we could use cognitive biases to our advantage and with this be more satisfied with ourselves? I will give you my New Years Resolution “nudge”. It might be self-serving to argue for the benefits of mental shortcuts. But it helped me to be more satisfied with myself this year. I want to encourage you to accept your own decisions and that it’s fine to change your beliefs.

The fox and the sour grapes is a story that capture the psychological theory, cognitive dissonance, where people change their beliefs in order to reconcile with their past actions and behaviour Festinger (1957). We fall for self-deception and do not see things for what the really are, irrational behaviour. The theory states that people are motivated to avoid having their beliefs in a dissonant or conflicting relationship, and that we feel uncomfortable when dissonance occurs. But the brilliant function of cognitive dissonance is that it is much easier to change your beliefs than your actions. Even though it is obscuring the realities of situations and could lead to bad decisions it still is one way to bolster self-esteem and increase the sense of wellbeing, or even increase happiness.

So, – Did you accomplish all your New Years resolutions? Don’t forget to have The fox and the sour grapes in mind, it might nudge you to be more satisfied with the year.

In Sweden we have an alcohol monopoly, where only the store called Systembolaget is allowed to sell alcohol. Stated at Systembolagets webpage, it exists for one reason: “To minimize alcohol-related problems by selling alcohol in a responsible way, without profit motive.” During Christmas this year, they have a campaign with a message on their plastic bags stated as follows:

“ The fact that we are the only one that sells beer, wine and liquor is a bit uncomfortable for you. But this is what you contribute to this year:

About 2000 saved lives

About 20 000 less violence crime

About 11 million less sick days”

Now… From a behavioural perspective, how does this make you feel? Perhaps I’m the only one, but this text actually puts me in a mood that make me feel – Yay, I just bought something for a good cause! Great, this justifies my alcohol shopping… Well, let’s be frank, I don’t think that’s the intention with the message.

Research led by Prof. Robert Cildini at Arizona State University proves that nudges can indeed backfire. In a national park, the research team tried to stop people from stealing petrified wood by posting: “Many past visitors have removed wood from the park, changing the state of the Petrified Forest”. But, with this warning, theft rates still stood high. So they changed the sign: “Your heritage is being vandalized every day by theft losses of petrified wood of 14 tons a year, mostly a small piece at a time”. Surprisingly, this warning influenced theft – but not in the intended direction: stealing jumped from 5 percent to almost 8 percent. The researchers concluded that the message people received was not “don’t steel the petrified wood” but rather “Stealing petrified wood is a common and socially acceptable behaviour.” This research proves that the intended effect the nudges can truly backfire. It emphasizes (as always) the importance of experimental testing thus, behavioural response to nudges can be unpredictable and very context depended.

I assume, that the intentions behind Systembolagets campaign are in line with the reason of why they exist, again: “To minimize alcohol-related problems by selling alcohol in a responsible way, without profit motive.” Maybe the campaign does work, we don’t know, as it’s most likely not tested.

But… According to me, from a behavioural perspective this is not a responsible campaign as it gives you a positive feedback holding a bag of alcohol. Hypothetically, this type of nudge may backfire making consumption of alcohol unintentionally justified as a good cause and consequently increase those numbers stated on the bag for next year…

In Sweden, only about 2.4 % of total CEOs in listed companies are female (SCB, 2014). In fact, there are more male CEOs named Johan than there are CEOs who are female. Still, women educate themselves to a greater extent and in addition even manage their studies better than men. So, It is not fair that there are so incredibly few female CEOs even though they actually have the right skills for the job. One contributing factor that is likely to induce this equality gap is the gender bias. E.g. we are much more likely to implicitly think CEO – men, and Nurse – female. Or, when you first saw the picture above – what was your response? You probably thought of something relating to boys and girls and colour of the babies clothes – although the picture doesn’t even explicitly say that the babies are a boy and a girl. Still, that was your association. As we are not exposed of seeing females as CEOs or men as nurses, our sub-conscious won’t either.

Evidence suggests that the gender bias is automatically activated as soon as evaluators in hiring processes learn the sex of a candidate. Moreover, it may lead to unintentional discrimination rather than objective judgment. It happens that the recruiter is under the influence of gender bias and unconsciously ascribes group stereotypes to the candidate.

Harvard University researchers (Bohnet et al., 2012) showed in an experimental study some interesting implications regarding gender bias and the hiring process. They imply that gender bias played a role when determine positions that women and men were judged to be qualified for. The study builds on insights from prospect theory that our mind tends to make relative judgments rather than absolute judgments. E.g. whether you think your coffee tastes good – depends on what coffee you have drunk before. It is very hard to calibrate if it is a “nice cup of coffee” if you have nothing to compare it to, you base your judgment on whatever comes to mind.

When it comes to hiring and promotions for upper management positions (such as CEOs), these decisions are often done one at a time or as a separate evaluation. Therefore, the authors wanted to test if the candidates were evaluated differently in groups, where they could be comparatively judged. The study involved 654 participants (men and female); 100 played the role of candidates seeking new positions and the rest played the role of employers. The candidates performed math and verbal tasks, activities that according to the authors could trigger gender bias, as females are believed to be worse at math tasks and better at verbal tasks than males. The employers subsequently were asked to choose which candidates were qualified to go on to a second round of competence tests.

In the separate evaluation, employers chose men over equally qualified women for a male-stereotypical assignment. In fact, they even preferred lower qualified men for male-stereotypical assignments to higher performing women for the task. Likewise, the employers preferred woman to equally qualified men for female-stereotypical assignments. However, tested in a joint evaluation, where the decision-making environment showed information about performance of both male and female candidates, the gender gap disappeared.

The study therefore proposes that evaluating candidates in groups or in joint evaluations can mitigate the gender bias. It enables the recruiter to compare candidates, which increases the likelihood that employers would assess them based on their performance and potential, rather than gender stereotypes.

Equality gaps are structural complex problems that need to be ambushed from many different angles. This type of “evaluation nudge” mentioned above is one of many tools that may be effective. I think that by being aware of equlity biases such as the gender bias, and understand why they are there, that your association (sometimes an image or a feeling) is there because you have been exposed to that link frequently (e.g. that girls babies might wear pink more frequently than boys) you might at least be one step closer at building the bridge over equality gaps.

Whether it is unintentional or not, we are all prejudices. We make certain associations, cognitive shortcuts through things that we have seen, heard or believed in our lives. If society is custom in a certain way, our mind tend to follow its path which sometimes lead us to unconsciousness discriminating misjudgments. For an eye-opener, I strongly recommend you to do som Implicit Association Tests (IAT) here. Most of you will then realize – seeing is sometimes unconsciousness believing. Be aware that your brain takes these shortcuts, which sometimes makes you unintentionally prejudice, racist and gender discriminating. If you are aware of these biases and when they occur – you can actively work against them and hopefully even change the associations that they bring.

With this blog post, I intend to give a (very) brief taste for newbies to the field of behavioural economics. And by that – lets start by talking about some standard economic theory and a rarity of man called Homo Economicus. Homo economicus is a very rational man who carefully weighs cost and benefits and is well-informed by his existing preferences – that is, he computes the values of all the options he faces, and then follows the best possible path of choice. We can also call him superman – hrmhrm, minus the fact that he only maximizes utility in his choices with regard to his own self-interest. This self-interested Superman (nope, he doesn’t sound very charming at all) is what standard economic theory assumes we are as humans. Subsequently, it is also what standard policy tools (e.g. taxes, subsidies, bans & regulations) that target human behaviour are based on.

However, we all now that we as humans are not always rational in our choices. A substantial body of research proves that we are very much influenced by limited cognitive resources, incomplete information and heuristics that lead to systematic deviations from our “rational” choice. Heuristics are mental shortcuts that humans rely on which though to simplify judgemental operations. These heuristics are in general quite useful (it helps you to not being forced actively reflect on every little single bit action you do), but also quite often they lead to severe cognitive biases. Biases that reasons in a way, which is not in accordance with norms of logic and probability. Let’s give you one of the behaviour economics guru Daniel Kahnemans’s favourite examples of how a cognitive bias can occur (although I Swedishonized the version a bit):

An individual in Sweden has been described by a neighbour as follows: Veronika is a very shy and withdrawn person but always helpful to people. She has a passion for reading books and is a very tidy soul with a detail for order and structure. Is Veronika more likely to be a librarian or a doctor?

Now, most people’s first intuitive thought or image that pops up into their mind is that Veronika is a librarian. Surely, this is because Veronika resembles a librarian more than a doctor. But, what “rational” people first should think of is that there are almost ten times more doctors than librarians in Sweden – hence Veronika is more likely to be a doctor. This example is just one out of MANY that proves that we deviates from Mr. Rational Superman.

In fact, we are far more complex than just being rational and therefore behavioural economists rather call us humans HomER economicus. For example, we tend to postpone things that we rather would like to be done with, have unhealthy living habits where we smoke, eat too much and exercise to little and – we consume beyond the planet’s capacity to recover. Therefore, in the area of public policy-making and tools that are based on biased assumptions – the intended effect may lead to failures. Behaviour economics, and in particular nudging, which recently has become a field within applied behavioural economics, is all about understanding these failures in order to change human behaviour.

Applied behavioural economics acknowledge the importance of having an interdisciplinary evidence-based approach using economic with insights from psychology. It emphasizes the role of analyze and test (often via experiments) in order to reveal if the policy intervention actually reached an intended effect on human behaviour. In conclusion, the purpose with this blog – as Britt mentioned in her previous post is NOT to say that “nudging” is the solution of all problems – but to spur an open debate about use of it as a tool with the aim of increasing “good” behaviour in Sweden. Nevertheless, not all nudges are good nudges – nudging is a powerful tool and can be harmful if being used in the wrong hands. But a debate about the ethics of nudging requires much more space than what I will dedicate this post – we’ll save that discussion for an upcoming one!

For those of you how had no clue what behavioural economics is about – hopefully this post gave you a teaser about it and why we should look at policy through a evidence-based behavioural lens.

Over and out!

On the behalf of the Swedish nudging team,

Linda

Ps.. Oh, and to be clear – I only shared a glance from my own head in this post. For a more comprehensive understanding I suggest you to dig deeper in to the literature. We will soon provide a reading – and watching list for those who are interested in knowing more!